Measurement Properties of Outcome Measures Used to Assess Physical Impairments in Patients After Distal Radius Fracture: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Individuals with distal radius fractures (DRF) may experience difficulty with gripping an object, painful wrist movements, sensorimotor difficulties, and swelling around the wrist and hand. A comprehensive review of the existing evidence concerning the measurement properties of common physical impairment measures can provide a valuable resource to guide hand therapy practice while managing DRF. The primary objective was to locate and assess the quality of literature on the measurement properties for the measures of physical impairment used in individuals with DRF. METHODS: Two reviewers searched PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE. A combination of DRF, measurement properties, and physical impairments were used as keywords, and articles were independently assessed using the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments critical appraisal tool. Primary studies were included if they examined at least 1 of the following: reliability, validity, responsiveness, or indices of true and meaningful changes for measures of physical impairment in the DRF sample. A total of 19 articles were included in this review. The quality of the studies ranged from 46% to 92%. This review suggests that measures such as assessment of grip strength and supination and pronation range of motion (ROM), using various goniometric devices, showed good intrarater and interrater reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness in individuals with DRF. CONCLUSION: Acceptable reliability and responsiveness were reported in grip and wrist ROM assessments for measuring changes in wrist and hand function after DRF; however, wrist ROM assessed using traditional goniometric techniques were less reliable in individuals with DRF. IMPACT: This study provides insight into which objective tools might be better suited for measuring outcomes related to DRF.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".